GOP war on science

[Wolfbeckett]

One would hope that your average congressperson would be well educated enough to understand how the scientific method works. One would also hope that these business people and lawyers would have scientific advisers, who were in fact scientists and engineers capable of communicating complex scientific concepts to the educated layperson.

We can always hope....right?

Congress is where hope goes to die so... I'd be prepared for disappointment if you decide to invest in hope .

 

[BenitoChavez]

You gotta hope harder!

 

[Antilogic]

Hoping harder doesn't fill your officially unaffiliated super PAC with millions of tax-free lobbyist dollars.

Now, if you changed that system of elections and outlawed those kinds of organizations...

 

[BenitoChavez]

Hoping harder doesn't fill your officially unaffiliated super PAC with millions of tax-free lobbyist dollars.

Now, if you changed that system of elections and outlawed those kinds of organizations...

Oh so we need hope and change? Who knew?

I believe some people tried to occasionally change the way campaign finacing works. It tends not to go well.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission

 

[Bootstoots]

Hoping harder doesn't fill your officially unaffiliated super PAC with millions of tax-free lobbyist dollars.

Now, if you changed that system of elections and outlawed those kinds of organizations...

No, it's easier than that. We just have to make sure at least 5 out of a very particular set of 9 people are sane enough to not consider corporations to be legal people and unlimited political campaigning to be protected free speech.

It does disturb me that that's the only way de-facto constitutional amendments ever happen anymore. A real amendment to the Constitution to unambiguously overrule the Supreme Court is obviously impossible with the insane requirements for passing an amendment the normal way.

I do wonder if a constitutional convention called by the states may be in our future if gridlock continues for too long. We really need to overhaul that document. Most of it seems like it time-traveled from the 18th century!

 

[Antilogic]

Oh so we need hope and change? Who knew?

I believe some people tried to occasionally change the way campaign finacing works. It tends not to go well.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Wrong kind of change.

No, it's easier than that. We just have to make sure at least 5 out of a very particular set of 9 people are sane enough to not consider corporations to be legal people and unlimited political campaigning to be protected free speech.

It does disturb me that that's the only way de-facto constitutional amendments ever happen anymore. A real amendment to the Constitution to unambiguously overrule the Supreme Court is obviously impossible with the insane requirements for passing an amendment the normal way.

I do wonder if a constitutional convention called by the states may be in our future if gridlock continues for too long. We really need to overhaul that document. Most of it seems like it time-traveled from the 18th century!

There are organizations like Wolf-PAC that are pushing for a state-called constitutional convention precisely because they think the standard legislative amendment process cannot be accomplished in the current environment.

 

[FriendlyFire]

We have been modifying animals since the dawn of civilization. Modern cows, pigs, chicken, etc. have nothing to do with their wild ancestors, who don't even exist anymore. So what? If we replace "natural"salmon for a bigger, tastier version who cares? Did God tell you that we're not supposed to interfere with how species evolve or something?

But stem cell research is an abomination ?
Blood transfusion is an abomination ?
Modern medicine is an abomination ?
The Earth orbiting the sun is an abomination ?

How about we actually listen to scientist and test this stuff before releasing it into the wild? Or would it be ok for anyone say an Iranian scientist testing Genetics to say unleash a new fish of some sort into the oceans ? You would be ok with this right ? Some third world country unleashing millions of new genetic species because you know we have been modifying animals.

Put in place a system developed and controlled by scientist for this kind of research.
Iam all for genetic research and new genetic advancements thank you very much, just not unregulated out of control research.

 

[Rashiminos]

Politician review would paradoxically have a beneficial effect. I'm in favor!

The current system creates nearly free information that anyone with a curious or entrepreneurial whim can access. The system is designed to create scientific data that has the highest scientific utility we can muster, without knowing the answers ahead of time. One of the greatest currencies in science is citations, where other scientists in your field acknowledge they got some benefit from the data you generated. Everyone involved is trying to maximize citations.

Reputation is a currency that politicians already understand.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's more than that. citations are correlated, but they're not the same thing. They're akin to credentials. Yeah, some people have good citations because of popularity, but the majority of the people who cite me only care about what they saw in my manuscript.